[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 165 (Friday, August 25, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44302-44307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-21199]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[A-570-601]
Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof, Finished and
Unfinished, From the People's Republic of China; Preliminary Results of
Antidumping Administrative Reviews
AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration,
Department of Commerce.
ACTION: Notice of Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty
Administrative Reviews of Tapered Roller Bearings and Parts Thereof,
Finished and Unfinished, from the People's Republic of China.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In response to requests by respondents and petitioner, the
Department of Commerce (the Department) is conducting three
administrative reviews of the antidumping duty order on tapered roller
bearings and parts thereof, finished and unfinished (TRBs), from the
People's Republic of China (PRC). The periods covered are June 1, 1990
through May 31, 1991; June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992; and June 1,
1992 through May 31, 1993, respectively. The reviews indicate the
existence of dumping margins during each of the above periods.
We have preliminarily determined that sales have been made below
foreign market value (FMV). If these preliminary results are adopted in
our final results of administrative reviews, we will instruct the U.S.
Customs Service to assess antidumping duties equal to the difference
between United States price (USP) and FMV. Interested parties are
invited to comment on these preliminary results.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles Riggle, Hermes Pinilla, Andrea
Chu, Donald Little, Kris Campbell or Michael Rill, Office of
Antidumping Compliance, Import Administration, International Trade
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 14th Street and
Constitution Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20230; telephone (202) 482-
4733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On June 5, 1991, the Department published in the Federal Register
(56 FR 25663) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC. In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), the petitioner, The Timken Company,
and respondents Chin Jun Industrial Ltd. (Chin Jun) and Henan Machinery
and Equipment Import and Export Corporation (Henan), requested that we
conduct an administrative review. We published a notice of initiation
of this antidumping duty administrative review on September 18, 1991
(56 FR 47185) covering the period June 1, 1990 through May 31, 1991
(the fourth review period).
On June 8, 1992, the Department published in the Federal Register
(57 FR 24244) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC. In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), the petitioner and one respondent,
Chin Jun, requested that we conduct an administrative review. We
published a notice of initiation of this antidumping duty
administrative review on July 22, 1992 (57 FR 32521) covering the
period June 1, 1991 through May 31, 1992 (the fifth review period).
On June 7, 1993, the Department published in the Federal Register
(58 FR 31941) a notice of opportunity to request an administrative
review of the antidumping duty order on TRBs from the PRC. In
accordance with 19 CFR 353.22(a), the petitioner and respondent Chin
Jun requested that we conduct an administrative review. We published a
notice of initiation of this antidumping duty administrative review on
July 21, 1993 (58 FR 39007) covering the period June 1, 1992 through
May 31, 1993 (the sixth review period).
The Department is conducting these administrative reviews in
accordance with section 751 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the
Act).
On September 9, 1991, we sent questionnaires to 43 companies for
which a review of the fourth review period was requested either by
respondents or the petitioner. Of those companies, only seven responded
to the questionnaire: Premier Bearing and Equipment, Ltd. (Premier),
Guizhou Machinery Import and Export Corporation(Guizhou), Henan, Jilin
Machinery Import and Export Corporation (Jilin), Luoyang Bearing
Factory (Luoyang), Shanghai General Bearing Co., Ltd. (Shanghai), and
Chin Jun.
On March 17, 1994, we sent questionnaires to 43 companies for which
a review of the fifth and sixth review periods was requested. Of those
companies, only nine responded to the questionnaire: Premier, Guizhou,
Wafangdian Bearing Company (Wafangdian), Liaoning Machinery and
Equipment Import and Export Corporation (Liaoning), Henan, Jilin,
Luoyang, Shanghai, and Chin Jun. In addition, we received responses
from two companies, Hubei Machinery and Equipment Corporation (Hubei)
and Guizhou Automotive Import and Export
[[Page 44303]]
Corporation (Guizhou Automotive), neither of which was sent a
questionnaire because they were not named in any requests for review.
We have preliminarily determined that these companies are independent
from government control and are therefore entitled to rates separate
from the PRC rate (see Separate Rates, below). Given that Hubei and
Guizhou Automotive are separate entities, the Department cannot review
their entries unless a timely request is made. See 19 CFR 353.22(a)
(1994). Therefore, we have not included these companies in the
preliminary results of these administrative reviews.
Scope of Review
Imports covered by this review are shipments of TRBs and parts
thereof, finished and unfinished, from the PRC. This merchandise is
classifiable under the Harmonized Tariff Schedule (HTS) item numbers
8482.20.00, 8482.91.00.60, 8492.99.30, 8483.20.40, 8483.20.80,
8483.30.80, 8483.90.20, 8483.90.30 and 8483.90.80. Although the HTS
item numbers are provided for convenience and customs purposes, our
written description of the scope of these proceedings is dispositive.
Separate Rates
1. Background and Summary of Findings
It is the Department's standard policy to assign all exporters of
the merchandise subject to review in non-market economy (NME) countries
a single rate, unless an exporter can demonstrate an absence of
government control, both in law and in fact, with respect to exports.
To establish whether an exporter is sufficiently independent of
government control to be entitled to a separate rate, the Department
analyzes the exporter under the criteria established in the Final
Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Sparklers from the
People's Republic of China (56 FR 20588, May 6, 1991) (Sparklers), as
amplified in Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value:
Silicon Carbide from the People's Republic of China (59 FR 22585, May
2, 1994) (Silicon Carbide). Evidence supporting, though not requiring,
a finding of de jure absence of government control over export
activities includes: (1) An absence of restrictive stipulations
associated with an individual exporter's business and export licenses;
(2) any legislative enactments decentralizing control of companies; and
(3) any other formal measures by the government decentralizing control
of companies. See Sparklers at 20589. Evidence relevant to a de facto
analysis of absence of government control over exports is based on four
factors: (1) Whether the respondent sets its own export prices
independent from the government and other exporters; (2) whether the
respondent can retain the proceeds from its export sales; (3) whether
the respondent has the authority to negotiate and sign contracts; and
(4) whether the respondent has autonomy from the government regarding
the selection of management. See Silicon Carbide at 22587; See also
Sparklers at 20589.
The Department determined that Guizhou, Henan, Jilin, Luoyang,
Shanghai, and Liaoning were entitled to separate rates during the
administrative review of the June 1, 1989 through May 31, 1990 review
period. See Preliminary Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative
Review: Tapered Roller Bearings from the People's Republic of China, 56
FR 50309 (October 4, 1991). There have been no allegations of changes
in control of the respondents in these reviews. However, the prior
separate rate determinations were made pursuant to the de jure and de
facto criteria developed in Sparklers, before the development of the
amplified analysis in Silicon Carbide, which added de facto criteria
(3) and (4) above. Accordingly, for the preliminary results of these
reviews we have examined these two additional criteria for these six
companies. Record evidence indicates that these companies maintain the
authority to negotiate and sign contracts and independently select
their management. Therefore, we preliminarily determine that these
companies are entitled to separate rates. See De Facto Analysis, infra.
In addition, we preliminarily determine that Wafangdian, Hubei, and
Guizhou Automotive meet both the de jure and de facto criteria and are
therefore also entitled to separate rates (see De Jure Analysis and De
Facto Analysis, infra). Information submitted during these reviews
indicates that all three companies are owned ``by all of the people.''
In Silicon Carbide (at 22586), we found that the PRC central government
had devolved control of state-owned enterprises, i.e., enterprises
owned ``by all the people.'' As a result, we determined that companies
owned ``by all the people'' were eligible for individual rates, if they
met the criteria developed in Sparklers and Silicon Carbide.
Finally, with respect to Premier and Chin Jun, no separate rates
analysis is required because these companies are privately-owned
trading companies located in Hong Kong.
2. De Jure Analysis: Wafangdian, Hubei, and Guizhou Automotive
With respect to de jure control, the following laws, which have
been placed on the record in this case, indicate a lack of de jure
government control over Wafangdian, Hubei, and Guizhou Automotive, and
establish that the responsibility for managing companies owned by ``all
the people'' has been transferred from the government to the enterprise
itself. These laws include: ``Law of the People's Republic of China on
Industrial Enterprises Owned by the Whole People,'' adopted on April
13, 1988 (1988 Law); ``Regulations for Transformation of Operational
Mechanism of State-Owned Industrial Enterprises,'' approved on August
23, 1992 (1992 Regulations); and the ``Temporary Provisions for
Administration of Export Commodities,'' approved on December 21, 1992
(Export Provisions). The 1988 Law states that enterprises have the
right to set their own prices (see Article 26). This principle was
restated in the 1992 Regulations (see Article IX). Finally, the 1992
``Temporary Provisions for Administration of Export Commodities'' list
those products subject to direct government control. TRBs do not appear
on this list and are not therefore subject to the constraints of these
provisions.
Consistent with Silicon Carbide, we determined that the existence
of these laws demonstrates that Wafangdian, Hubei, and Guizhou
Automotive, companies owned by ``all the people,'' are not subject to
de jure control. In light of reports \1\ indicating that laws shifting
control from the government to the enterprises themselves have not been
implemented uniformly, an analysis of de facto control is critical in
determining whether respondents are, in fact, subject to government
control.
\1\ See ``PRC Government Findings on Enterprise Autonomy,'' in
Foreign Broadcast Information Service-China-93-133 (July 14, 1993)
and 1992 Central Intelligence Agency Report to the Joint Economic
Committee, Hearings on Global Economic and Technological Change:
Former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and China, Pt.2 (102 Cong.,
2d Sess.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. De Facto Analysis: Wafangdian, Hubei, Guizhou Automotive, and
Companies Previously Determined to be Separate During the 1989-90
Review
Based on the record evidence, which is contained in the
questionnaire responses and which was further examined at verification,
we have found that the pricing and export strategy
[[Page 44304]]
decisions of Wafangdian, Hubei, and Guizhou Automotive are not subject
to any entity's review or approval, and that there are no government
policy directives that affect these decisions. There are no
restrictions on the use of respondents' revenues or profits, including
export earnings. Decisions made by respondents concerning purchases of
subject merchandise from other suppliers are not subject to government
approval. Further, respondents' sources of funds are their own savings
or bank loans, and they have sole control and access to their bank
accounts, which are held in each company's name.
We have analyzed the additional criteria developed in Silicon
Carbide (the authority to negotiate and sign contracts and the degree
of autonomy in the selection of management) with respect to the
companies previously found to be separate during the 1989-90
administrative review (Guizhou, Henan, Jilin, Luoyang, Shanghai, and
Liaoning) as well as Wafangdian, whose independence we have not
previously analyzed. We have also solicited information relevant to
these additional silicon Carbide criteria from the voluntary
respondents Hubei and Guizhou Automotive and will analyze this data
between the preliminary and final results. As noted above, the evidence
currently in the record suggests that Hubei and Guizhou Automotive are
independent entities.
Each of the seven companies general managers has the right to
negotiate and enter into contracts, and may delegate this authority to
other employees within the company. There is no evidence that this
authority is subject to any level of governmental approval.
For each of the companies named above, except Shanghai, the general
manager is elected by an employees' assembly. The election results are
then recorded with the relevant provincial bureau (e.g., the Guizhou
Provincial Foreign Trade and Economic Commission in the case of
Guizhou). There is no evidence that these bureaus control the selection
process or that they have rejected a general manager selected through
the employee election process. The employee assemblies can remove the
general manager, typically under the authority of the company's
Articles of Association, in the case of mismanagement or violation of
Chinese law.
For Shanghai, the highest authority within the company is the board
of directors, of which six members, including the chairman, are
appointed by the Chinese partner. Three members, including the vice
chairman, are appointed by the American partner. The Chinese joint
venture partner nominates a manager and a deputy manager, and the
American partner nominates a second deputy manager; all are subject to
approval by the board of directors. There is no evidence that the
selection of management is subject to any level of governmental
approval.
Based on the foregoing analysis of the evidence of record, we
preliminarily determine that there is an absence of both de jure and de
facto government control with respect to the companies that are
participating in this review. Accordingly, we determine that each of
these exporters should receive a separate rate.
Because we have preliminarily determined that the voluntary
respondents Hubei and Guizhou Automotive are entitled to separate rates
and no review was requested for these companies, we have not reviewed
their entries during the 91/92 and 92/93 review periods (see Background
section above). Therefore, the rates established for these companies in
the 89/90 review of this case (i.e., the 89/90 PRC rate) will continue
to apply for future cash deposits.
For those companies for which we initiated a review and which did
not respond to the questionnaires, as best information available (BIA),
we have determined that these companies do not merit separate rates.
See ``Best Information Available'' section below.
United States Price
For fourth review sales made by Jilin and Guizhou, and the fifth
and sixth review sales made by Wafangdian, Liaoning, Jilin, and
Guizhou, we based the USP on purchase price, in accordance with section
772(b) of the Act, because the subject merchandise was sold to
unrelated purchasers in the United States prior to importation into the
United States, and because exporter's sales price (ESP) methodology was
not indicated by other circumstances. For fourth, fifth, and sixth
review sales made by Chin Jun, Shanghai, and Henan, we based USP on
ESP, in accordance with section 772(c) of the Act, because sales to the
first unrelated purchaser took place after importation into the United
States. The only company with a combination of purchase price and ESP
sales subject to review is Luoyang. All of Luoyang's fourth and fifth
review sales were purchase price. During the sixth review, it made
purchase price as well as ESP sales (through its related U.S.
affiliate, Central Bearing, Inc.).
We calculated purchase price based on, as appropriate, the FOB,
CIF, or C&F port price to unrelated purchasers. We made deductions for
brokerage and handling, foreign inland freight, ocean freight, and
marine insurance. When marine insurance and ocean freight were provided
by PRC-owned companies, we based the deduction on surrogate values. See
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Saccharin from
the People's Republic of China, 59 FR 58818, 58825 (November 15, 1994).
We valued foreign inland freight deductions using surrogate data based
on Indian freight costs. We selected India as the surrogate country for
the reasons explained in the ``Foreign Market Value'' section of this
notice. We calculated ESP based on the packed, ex-warehouse price from
the U.S. subsidiary to unrelated customers. We made deductions from ESP
for U.S. packing in the United States, ocean freight, foreign brokerage
& handling, foreign inland freight, marine insurance, customs duty,
U.S. brokerage, U.S. inland freight insurance and U.S. inland freight.
Foreign Market Value
Section 773(c)(1) of the Act provides that the Department shall
determine the FMV using a factors of production methodology if (1) the
merchandise is exported from an NME country, and (2) the information
does not permit the calculation of FMV using home market prices, third-
country prices, or constructed value (CV) under section 773(a).
In the most recent review of this order, the Department treated the
PRC as an NME country. In its submissions of November 21, 1991 and June
6, 1994, Shanghai requested that the Department accept Shanghai's
actual costs, claiming that its costs were market-driven. However, in
order to accept the costs of a company in an NME country, the
Department must determine that the industry in which that company
operates, not just a particular company, is market oriented. See, e.g.,
Preliminary Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value and
Postponement of Final Determination: Pure and Alloy Magnesium from the
Russian Federation, 59 FR 55427, 55430 (November 7, 1994) (``an NME-
country respondent may argue that market-driven prices characterize its
particular industry and, therefore, despite NME status, that foreign
market value should be calculated by using actual home market prices or
costs'' (emphasis added)).
Because neither Shanghai, nor any other company in these reviews,
has argued that the TRB industry in the PRC is market-oriented, we
continue to
[[Page 44305]]
consider that industry to be non-market-oriented and, therefore, we
have applied our standard NME methodology and surrogate values to
Shanghai's factors of production to determine FMV and movement costs.
Except as noted below, we calculated FMV based on factors of
production in accordance with section 773(c) of the Act and section
353.52 of our regulations. We chose India as the most comparable
surrogate on the basis of the criteria set out in section 353.52(b).
See Memorandum from Director, Office of Policy to Program Manager,
Office of Antidumping Compliance, dated November 23, 1994. Further,
information on the record indicates that India is a significant
producer of TRBs. See Memorandum from the analyst to the file, dated
July 20, 1995. We used publicly available information relating to India
to value the various factors of production.
We valued the factors of production as follows:
For hot-rolled alloy steel bars and rods, and irregular
coils, used in the production of rollers; hot-rolled alloy steel bars
and rods, used in the production of cups and cones; cold-rolled strip
and sheet, used in the production of cages; and bearing quality and
non-bearing quality steel scrap, we used import prices obtained from
the Monthly Statistics of the Foreign Trade of India, Volume II--
Imports, December 1991. We adjusted the factor values to the period of
review (POR) using wholesale price indices (WPI) of India as published
in the International Financial Statistics by the International Monetary
Fund (IMF). We made further adjustments to include freight costs
incurred between the steel supplier and the TRB factory.
Luoyang and Henan reported that hot-rolled alloy steel bar used by
Luoyang to produce cups and cones was imported from Japan during the
fourth review period and Spain during the fifth and sixth review
periods. Accordingly, we used actual costs for those purchases because
they were from a market-economy country. See Final Determination of
Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Oscillating Fans and Ceiling Fans from
the PRC, 56 FR 55271, 55275 (October 25, 1991). Luoyang also claimed
that cold-rolled sheet used for cages was imported from Spain during
the fifth and sixth review periods. However, it did not provide prices
with respect to purchases made during the POR; accordingly, we used
surrogate values for this material input.
For direct labor, we used 1990 data from the Yearbook of
Labour Statistics, published in 1993 by the International Labour
Office. We then adjusted the 1990 labor value to each POR to reflect
inflation using WPI published by the IMF. We calculated the labor cost
for each component by multiplying the labor time requirement by the
surrogate labor rate. Indirect labor is reflected in the selling,
general and administrative (SG&A) and overhead rates.
For factory overhead, we used information obtained from a
financial report of a producer of similar merchandise in India. From
this source, we were able to calculate factory overhead as a percentage
of total cost of manufacture.
For SG&A expenses, we used information obtained from the
same financial report used to obtain factory overhead. This information
showed SG&A expenses as a percentage of the cost of manufacture. SG&A
expenses were less than 10 percent of the cost of manufacture.
Therefore, we used the statutory minimum of 10 percent of the cost of
manufacture for SG&A, in accordance with sections 773(c)(1) and 773(e)
of the Act.
For profit, we used the profit rate of the same Indian
producer of similar merchandise from which we derived a rate for
factory overhead.
For export packing, we applied BIA (section 776(c) of the
Act) because the respondents did not supply sufficient factor
information by which to calculate packing costs. We used, as BIA, one
percent of the total ex-factory cost and SG&A expenses combined. This
percentage, obtained from publicly available data, was used in the
Final Determination of Sales at Less Than Fair Value: Tapered Roller
Bearings from Italy, 52 FR 24198 (June 29, 1987). This methodology is
consistent with the Department's valuation of packing in the Final
Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Tapered Roller
Bearings from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 67590 (December 31,
1991). We used this percentage because there was no publicly available
information from a comparable surrogate country.
For foreign inland freight, we used the price reported in
a December 1989 cable from the U.S. Embassy in India submitted for the
Final Results of Antidumping Duty Administrative Review: Shop Towels of
Cotton from the People's Republic of China, 56 FR 4040 (February 1,
1991). We adjusted the value of freight to the POR using a WPI
published by the IMF.
Currency Conversion
We made currency conversions in accordance with 19 C.F.R.
353.60(a). Currency conversions were made at the rates certified by the
Federal Reserve Bank.
Best Information Available
Section 776(c) of the Act provides that whenever a party refuses or
is unable to produce information requested in a timely manner and in
the form required, or otherwise significantly impedes an investigation,
the Department shall use BIA. In deciding what to use as BIA, 19 C.F.R.
353.37(b) provides that the Department may take into account whether a
party refused to provide requested information. Thus, the Department
determines on a case-by-case basis what is BIA. Whenever a company
refuses to provide the information requested in the form required, or
otherwise significantly impedes the Department's review, the Department
will normally assign to that company the higher of (1) the highest rate
for any firm in the less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation or prior
administrative reviews of sales of subject merchandise from that same
country; or (2) the highest rate found in that review for any firm.
When a company has cooperated with the Department's request for
information but fails to provide the information requested in a timely
manner or in the form required, the Department will normally assign to
that company the higher of either: (1) the highest of the rates found
for that firm in the LTFV investigation or prior administrative
reviews; or (2) the highest calculated rate found in that review for
any firm. (See Antifriction Bearings from France, et al.; Final Results
of Review, 58 FR 39729 (July 26, 1993).)
Non-Responsive Companies
For each of the review periods, we have assigned non-cooperative
BIA to those companies for which we initiated a review and which did
not respond to the questionnaires. In accordance with the non-
cooperative BIA formula stated above, this represents the highest rate
for any firm from the LTFV investigation or any review of sales of
subject merchandise from the PRC. As noted in the separate rates
section above, we have determined that those companies do not merit
separate rates. Therefore, the non-cooperative BIA for the non-
responsive companies forms the basis of the PRC rate. The PRC rate is
15.61 percent for the fourth review and 23.76 percent for the fifth and
sixth reviews.
[[Page 44306]]
Responsive Companies
1. Non-Cooperative BIA
Chin Jun
On May 23, 1994, Chin Jun, a reseller of TRBs based in Hong Kong,
submitted a letter seeking to withdraw its request for the fourth
review. Because the petitioner had also requested a review, we did not
terminate the review. In its response to the Department's
questionnaires of November 12, 1991, for Section A and December 24,
1991, for Sections B and C, Chin Jun provided incomplete information.
Also, Chin Jun failed to respond to the Department's May 6, 1994
supplemental questionnaire. In addition, Chin Jun refused to permit the
verification of its sales information. Therefore, we have applied non-
cooperative BIA to sales from Chin Jun for the fourth review.
Cooperative BIA
Premier
Premier, a reseller of TRBs from the PRC based in Hong Kong, stated
it could not respond to the Department's supplemental questionnaire,
which requested factors of production data. We asked Premier for
factors of production data with the intent of using this information
to: (1) perform a cost of production test on third-country sales; and
(2) calculate CV when necessary. Premier stated that it was not in a
position to request factors of production information from its
suppliers. The Department then sent factors of production
questionnaires to Premier's suppliers in an effort to obtain the
information. We did not receive any responses from Premier's suppliers.
In addition, the Department found significant errors in reported sales
data at verification of Premier. Therefore, for these preliminary
results we have applied in each review, as cooperative BIA, the higher
of the highest rate ever applicable to Premier or the highest
calculated rate in the same review.
2. Partial BIA
We are applying partial BIA to certain sales made by Jilin,
Liaoning, Chin Jun, Guizhou and Henan. All of these companies were
cooperative in these reviews, and we do not find these deficiencies
sufficient to call into question the reliability of the data provided
by these companies. However, we are lacking the necessary data for FMV
calculations with respect to certain models sold in the United States
by these companies. We do not have complete data for one model sold by
Jilin in the fifth review, one model sold by Liaoning in the sixth
review, and several models sold by Chin Jun in both reviews. We are
also applying partial BIA to most of Guizhou's U.S. sales in the fifth
review. Guizhou provided complete U.S. sales information, but we were
unable to verify the factors of production for the merchandise that it
purchased from one factory. We were, however, able to verify the
factors for merchandise sold by Guizhou that was supplied by a second
factory. As partial BIA, we applied to the relevant U.S. sales by
Jilin, Liaoning, Chin Jun, and Guizhou the higher of the highest rate
ever applicable to that company, or the highest rate calculated in the
same review.
For the fourth review, Henan provided incomplete information with
regard to one of the products it sold. For that product, reported
factors of production information regarding gross weight, scrap weight,
and direct labor were combined for cups and cones. Since cups and cones
were sold separately, it was necessary to segregate these amounts. As
BIA for that product, we allocated input weights of steel between the
cup and cone on the basis of the relative weights of the finished cup
and cone, which were reported separately. To allocate total direct
labor hours to the cup, as BIA, we calculated the ratio of the average
labor hours for cups for all other products sold by Henan to the
average total labor hours for all other products, and applied this
ratio to total direct labor hours for this particular product. We
allocated the remainder of the total direct labor hours for this
product to the cone.
For the cup and cone components of this same product, Henan failed
to indicate the specific types of steel used and the distance from the
steel mill to the TRB factory. As BIA for determining the steel types
used in the production of this product, we have assumed that the same
materials used for other products sold by Henan were also used for this
product. As BIA for calculating freight costs, we have assumed the
longest distance between the steel mills and TRB factories for steel
used in the production of Henan's other TRBs (as reflected in Henan's
response).
For all three reviews, although Henan supplied factors data for all
models, it did not identify which of two producers supplied certain
models that were sold by Henan to the United States during each POR.
Accordingly, for sales of these models by Henan, we used as BIA the
higher of the two possible FMVs for each product for the review period,
based on the factors of production from the two suppliers, because the
products may have been sourced from either of the two suppliers.
Preliminary Results of the Review
As a result of our comparison of the USP to FMV, we preliminarily
determine that the following dumping margins exist:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Margin (percent)
-----------------------------------------
Manufacturer/exporter 6/1/90 to5/ 6/1/91 to5/ 6/1/92 to5/
31/91 31/92 31/93
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Premier Bearing and Equipment,
Limited...................... \2\ 15.61 \2\ 23.76 23.76
Guizhou Machinery Import and
Export Corporation........... 7.21 \2\ 23.76 0.00
Henan Machinery and Equipment
Import and Export Corporation 0.87 6.79 4.06
Luoyang Bearing Factory....... 0.78 0.61 0.00
Shanghai General Bearing
Company, Ltd................. 0.51 0.00 0.00
Jilin Machinery Import and
Export Corporation........... 15.61 4.89 0.00
Chin Jun Industrial Ltd....... \1\ 15.61 0.51 1.16
Wafangdian Bearing Factory.... 15.61 23.76 No sales
Liaoning Co., Ltd............. \1\ 15.61 7.73 0.42
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This party did not respond to the questionnaire or did not respond
to the supplemental questionnaire; therefore, as uncooperative BIA, we
assigned the highest rate calculated in the investigation or in this
or any other review of sales of subject merchandise from the PRC. This
does not constitute a separate rate finding for this firm.
\2\ As cooperative BIA, we assigned in each review the higher of (1) the
highest rate ever applicable to that company in the investigation or
any previous review; or (2) the highest calculated margin for any
respondent that supplied an adequate response in the same review.
[[Page 44307]]
Parties to the proceeding may request disclosure within five days
of the date of publication of this notice. Any interested party may
request a hearing within 10 days of publication. Any hearing, if
requested, will be held approximately 44 days after the publication of
this notice. Interested parties may submit written comments (case
briefs) within 30 days of the date of publication of this notice.
Rebuttal comments (rebuttal briefs), which must be limited to issues
raised in the case briefs, may be filed not later than 37 days after
the date of publication. The Department will publish a notice of final
results of this administrative review, including the results of its
analysis of issues raised in any such written comments.
The Department shall determine, and the Customs Service shall
assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Individual
differences between USP and FMV may vary from the percentages stated
above. The Department will issue appraisement instructions directly to
the Customs Service.
Furthermore, the following cash deposit requirements will be
effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative
review for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or
withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication
date, as provided for by section 751(a)(1) of the Act: (1) For the
companies named above that have separate rates and were reviewed
(Premier, Guizhou, Henan, Jilin, Luoyang, Shanghai, Liaoning, Chin Jun,
and Wafangdian), the cash deposit rates will be the rates for these
firms established in the final results of the sixth administrative
review; (2) for Hubei and Guizhou Automotive, both of which we
preliminarily determine to be entitled to separate rates, the rates
will continue to be those that currently apply to these companies (8.83
percent for both); (3) for all remaining PRC exporters, all of which
were found to not be entitled to separate rates, the cash deposit will
be 23.76 percent; and (4) for other non-PRC exporters of subject
merchandise from the PRC, the cash deposit rate will be the rate
applicable to the PRC supplier of that exporter. These deposit
requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until publication of
the final results of the next administrative review.
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of
their responsibility under 19 C.F.R. 353.26 to file a certificate
regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation
of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply
with this requirement could result in the Secretary's presumption that
reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent
assessment of double antidumping duties.
This administrative review and notice are in accordance with
section 751(a)(1) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)(1)) and 19 C.F.R.
353.22.
Dated: August 8, 1995.
Susan G. Esserman,
Assistant Secretary for Import Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-21199 Filed 8-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-M
